BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATIALA.

                                                Complaint No.CC/10/304 of 28.4.2010 

                                                Decided on:          29.8.2011

M/s Glacier Lons & Gases Ltd. village Jangpura,Banur, Tehsil Rajpura,Distt.Patiala.

                                                                             -----------Complainant

                                       Versus

M/s New Patiala Electric Works, G.T.Road, Rajpura, District Patiala.

                                                                             ----------Opposite party.

                                      Complaint under Section 12 of the

                                      Consumer Protection Act.

                                      QUORUM

                                      Sh.D.R.Arora, President

                                      Sh.Amarjit Singh Dhindsa, Member

                                      Smt.Neelam Gupta, Member

Present:

For the complainant:     Sh.Vikram Sharma, Advocate

For op:                            Sh.Alok Mathur , Advocate

                                         ORDER

D.R.ARORA, PRESIDENT

          The complainant had got one electric motor of 200HP rewound from the op in the month of September 2009.The op had repaired the said motor and given a guarantee with regard to the re-winding for a minimum period of six months. The guarantee was given in writing by the op on the letter head on 9.9.2009.The complainant had made the payment of Rs.25000/- in cash to the op in two installments.

2.       However, the said motor had gone out of order on 20.12.2009 because of the defective rewinding in respect of which the op was informed by the complainant on the same very day. After repeated reminders on telephone, someone from the side of the op had visited the factory of the complainant on 6.1.2010 and advised the complainant to send the motor to the workshop of the op and accordingly the motor was sent to the workshop of the op but despite the repeated requests made by the complainant the op failed to repair the motor as per the guarantee. The motor was returned by the op on 14.1.2010 un repaired vide delivery challan no.143.

3.       It is further averred that due to the defective rewinding of the motor and the same having broken down within guarantee period of six months, and because of the failure on the part of the op to repair the motor, the complainant had to shut down the plant for 23 days from 20.12.2009 to 11.1.2010 and thus the complainant suffered the production loss to the tune of 300 tons besides the loss of the goodwill in the market.

4.       On account of the aforesaid circumstances, the complainant had served the op with a legal notice dated 16.1.2010 having called upon the complainant to refund the repair charges of Rs.25000/- and further to compensate the complainant in a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- on account of loss suffered by him and the same was replied to by the op but the complainant not being satisfied with the same approached this Forum through the present complaint brought under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 (for short the Act).

5.       On notice, the op appeared and filed its written version having raised certain legal objections, interalia that the complainant is estopped in filing the complaint by its act and conduct; that the complainant had no cause of action to file the complaint against the op and that the complaint is based on false and concocted grounds and therefore, the same is liable to be dismissed. As regards the facts of the complaint, it is admitted by the op that the complainant had got an old motor rewound from the op and that the guarantee was given to the complainant but the same was not against any mechanical fault. The complainant had met the op many a times and it used to say that the motor was rewound properly .It is denied if the motor had gone out of order due to defective rewinding on 20.12.2009.It is however, admitted that in the first week of January 2010 the complainant had sent the motor for checking the defect and the op after having checked the motor informed that there was some mechanical defect in the motor and asked the complainant to get the same removed. The motor was delivered to the complainant on 14.1.2010.

6.       It is also averred that had there been any defect in the rewinding of the motor, the same would not have worked for a single day. The motor of the complainant might have burnt due to voltage fluctuation , over load due to increase in the load or because of loose bearings due to which the starter was not controlling It is denied, if the complainant had suffered any loss because of the brake down of the motor and that the complainant had to shut his plant from 20.12.2009 to 11.1.2010. Ultimately after denouncing the other averments going against, the op, it was prayed to dismiss the complaint.

7.       In support of its claim, the complainant produced in evidence,Ex.C1, the sworn affidavit of N.K.Dutta,General Manager of the complainant, alongwith Ex.C2 the copy of the resolution passed by the complainant having authorized Mr.N.K.Dutta, General Manager to pursue the complaint alongwith documents,Exs.C3 to C10 and the evidence of the complainant was closed by the order of the Forum.

8.       On the other hand, on behalf of the op, its learned counsel produced in evidence,Ex.R1, the sworn affidavit of Mohinder Singh, Prop of the op,Ex.R12 the sworn affidavit of Mehar Singh, alongwith documents,Exs.R2 to R11 and R13 to R17 and closed their evidence.

9.       The op filed the written arguments.We have examined the same, heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the evidence on record.

10.     It is an admitted fact between the parties that the complainant had got its 200HP motor rewound from the op in the month of September 2009 having made the payment of Rs.25000/- and the op had given a guarantee about the rewinding for a period of six months, the copy of the guarantee being,Ex.C4 dated 9.9.2009.

11.     It is also an admitted fact that the motor had gone out of order on 20.12.2009 and the complainant sent the motor to the op for being repaired but the op after having checked the motor informed the complainant that there was no defect in the rewinding of the motor and the motor might have gone out of order because of some mechanical defect.

12.     It is important to note that the op has not placed on file any report to have been obtained by it from any mechanic to prove that the motor was checked and the same was found to have got out of order because of some mechanical fault. The bald statement to have been made by Mohinder Singh, Prop. of the op that in the first week of January 2010, the complainant had sent the motor for checking the defect and that the deponent(affidavit being Ex.R1) after checking the motor had informed the complainant that there was some mechanical defect in the motor and asked the complainant to get the same corrected. It was obligatory on the part of the op to have informed the complainant about it having checked the motor and that the same had gone out of order because of some mechanical defect but such report is not got proved by the op.

13.     After all there must be some valid reason to say that the motor had gone out of order because of a mechanical fault and not because of a defect in the rewinding of the motor. It is quite possible that the wire used in the rewinding of the motor was not of upto mark/good quality or there was other defect in the rewinding like loose coils. There must be criteria to make a distinction between the  motor having gone out of order because of the defective wiring and the mechanical fault. It is a simple plea taken up by the op that the motor of the complainant would have gone out of order due to voltage fluctuation, increase in load, loose bearings or due to the fact that the starter was not controlling but no report in that regard was given by the op to the complainant when the motor was sent for repair in the month of September 2009.When the op had given a specific guarantee vide,Ex.C4, it was obligatory on the part of the op to have either repaired the motor or disclosed the circumstances leading to the brake down of the motor because of mechanical fault. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the motor can not be said to be gone out of order because of some mechanical fault and all this occurred because of  a defective rewinding .It is a matter of experience that the electric motors do last for a number of years in case it is rewound properly and many a times it is also seen that defective rewinding results into the brake down of the motor within short span.

13.     However, we do not find any substance in the plea of the complainant that because of its motor having gone out of order the plant had to be shut for a period of 23 days which resulted into non production of 300 tons of the material .We find that the complainant was entitled to get the motor repaired by the op but since the motor has already been got repaired by the complainant from Gande Electrical and Mechanical Works on 31.1.2010 as would appear from the bill,Ex.C8,we find that the complainant can reasonably to be compensated for the expenses to have been incurred by the complainant in getting the motor rewound but it would be more appropriate and the fitness of the things in case the op is directed to refund the amount of Rs.25000/- charged by it from the complainant in having rewound the motor in September 2009 because of the defective rewinding. Accordingly we accept the complaint and give a direction to the op to make the payment of Rs.25000/-to the complainant within one month on receipt of the  certified copy of the order and further to pay Rs.2500/- as costs of the complaint as the complainant approached this Forum after having served the op with a legal notice ,Ex.C9 dated 16.1.2010.

Pronounced.

Dated:29.8.2011

                             Neelam Gupta      Amarjit Singh Dhindsa    D.R.Arora

                             Member                Member                            President